The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

Conclusion
Stephen Alford has recognised that ―So much of what Burghley knew is gone,
either emptied of meaning or changed beyond all recognition‖. 1 The implications of this
statement are broader than Alford seems to have appreciated. Cecil‘s patronage of alchemy
suggests that historians have fundamentally misunderstood his character. Many of the
examples examined in this thesis are well documented in the primary sources, yet have
been largely ignored by the existing scholarship. Historians have disregarded them, not
simply due to a lack of interest in alchemy, but because Cecil‘s actions did not fit with the
character they had constructed for him. The association of alchemy with esoteric
spiritualism, witchcraft and necromancy is in part responsible for blinding many historians
to the true influence of alchemical concepts in the Elizabethan Court. Lawrence Principe
and William Newman have argued that historians ―who do not utilize primary sources are
particularly liable to acquiesce to the esoteric view [of alchemy].‖ 2 To Cecil alchemy was
not a dark, arcane art, rather the legitimate attempt of man to manipulate the unity of
nature.
This thesis has investigated William Cecil‘s enduring interest in alchemical
patronage throughout his career. Four key forms of Cecil‘s alchemical patronage have been
analysed, using a number of case studies: philosophical patronage; medical patronage;
financial patronage; and economic patronage.
In order to establish the position of alchemy within Cecil‘s worldview, Chapter one
examined both the diversity of alchemical belief in the sixteenth century, and the
environment within which Cecil was educated. What has emerged is that alchemical ideas
were not only complementary to, but an essential element of, Cecil‘s Aristotelian
1 Alford, Burghley, p. 343.
2 Principe and Newman, ‗Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy‘, p. 397.
154